Alan Dershowitz, the famed Harvard professor, legal scholar and criminal lawyer whose judgment American Jews have long trusted and respected (…) now realizes that Obama had repeatedly duped him, and that through his endorsements of Obama, Dershowitz in turn duped many American Jews, helping to secure Obama’s election and re-election. Now Israel has been compromised as never before, with the United Nations through Obama’s manoeuvrings having declared that Jews have no right to live in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, which they have inhabited for the greater part of 3,000 years, and that Israel has no rights to its holiest sites, including the Western Wall and the Temple Mount. Winning Jewish support wasn’t especially important to Obama and other Democrats in terms of votes — Jews represent just two per cent of the U.S. electorate, generally making their numbers inconsequential at the ballot box. But Jews are hugely important — even decisive — in their political giving. The Jewish two per cent — which is overwhelmingly liberal — accounts for about two-thirds of all donations received by the Democratic Party. Put another way, the Jewish two per cent donates twice as much to Democrats as the non-Jewish 98 per cent. The importance of Jewish money to Democratic fortunes explains why Obama waited to make his moves against Israel until after his two presidential campaigns and the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, whom he hoped would preserve his legacy. If Jews understood his real intentions toward Israel, Obama knew, many would withdraw their financial support. Obama’s prudent course — his only viable course — in realizing his desire to strip Israel of its paramount possessions, embodiments of its heritage, was to keep his intentions secret, all the while upping his rhetoric that “no president has ever done more for Israel.” Obama also needed to maintain this public pretence to keep his fellow Democrats in the dark, most of whom would blanche at the thought of offending, and losing, their Jewish backers. The American public’s general sympathy for Israel, and general antipathy toward Palestinians, also made any prior anti-Israel coming out a non-starter. (…) With this week’s passage of the anti-Israel UN resolution, the Dershowitz infatuation with Obama is over. The famed criminal lawyer finally sees the evidence that had been in plain sight all along, and now understands the extent of Obama’s deception. It was “so nasty. He pulled a bait-and-switch,” Dershowitz laments, in explaining how Obama in private pretended that it was “the settlements deep in the West Bank” that were negotiable, not the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, so core to Judaism and to Israel’s heritage.Lawrence Solomon

Jerusalem is the only world capital whose status is denied by the international community. To change that, in 1995 Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act, which mandates moving the U.S. Embassy to a “unified” Jerusalem. The law has been held in abeyance due to semiannual presidential waivers for “national security” reasons. President Obama’s final waiver will expire June 1. There’s no good reason to maintain the charade that Jerusalem is not Israeli, and every reason for Mr. Trump to honor his campaign promise. The main arguments against moving the embassy—embraced by the foreign-policy establishment—is that it would lead to terrorism against American targets and undermine U.S. diplomacy. But the basis of those warnings has been undermined by the massive changes in the region since 1995. While the Palestinian issue was once at the forefront of Arab politics, today Israel’s neighbors are preoccupied with a nuclear Iran and radical Islamic groups. For the Sunni Arab states, the Trump administration’s harder line against Iran is far more important than Jerusalem. To be sure, a decision to move the embassy could serve as a pretext for attacks by groups like al Qaeda. But they are already fully motivated against the U.S. Another oft-heard admonition is that America would be going out on a limb if it “unilaterally” recognized Jerusalem when no other country did. An extraordinary recent development has rendered that warning moot. Last month Russia suddenly announced that it recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Note what happened next: No explosions of anger at the Arab world. No end to Russia’s diplomatic role in the Middle East. No terror attacks against Russian targets. Moscow’s dramatic Jerusalem reversal has largely been ignored by the foreign-policy establishment because it disproves their predictions of mayhem. To be sure, Russia limited its recognition to “western Jerusalem.” Even so, it shifted the parameters of the discussion. Recognizing west Jerusalem as Israeli is now the position of a staunchly pro-Palestinian power. To maintain the distinctive U.S. role in Middle East diplomacy—and to do something historic—Mr. Trump must go further. Does the U.S. want to wind up with a less pro-Israel position than Vladimir Putin’s ? (…) Moving the embassy to Jerusalem would also improve the prospect of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. It would end the perverse dynamic that has prevented such negotiations from succeeding: Every time the Palestinians say “no” to an offer, the international community demands a better deal on their behalf. No wonder no resolution has been reached. Only last week, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas insisted that new negotiations “start” with the generous offer made by Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008. Relocating the embassy would demonstrate to the Palestinian Authority that rejectionism has costs.Eugene Kontorovich (Kohelet Policy Forum, Northwestern University)

The reaction from the foreign-policy establishment and America’s European and Arab allies is unanimous. All are opposed to President Donald Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Moreover, the very real possibility of violence from the Palestinians, and perhaps even bloody riots throughout the Muslim world, in reaction to a statement scheduled to be delivered today has once again brought down a hail of criticism assailing the president’s judgment. But while this may complicate America’s position in the Middle East and further confuse an already muddled peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, the brickbats aimed at Trump are ignoring the most significant aspect of the controversy. If Trump acknowledges something that has been a reality for nearly 70 years — Jerusalem has been Israel’s capital since the conclusion of its War of Independence in 1949 — but, as is likely, doesn’t immediately move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv or explicitly recognize Israel’s right to all of Jerusalem, then any resulting Arab or Muslim violence will make explicit something that most of those opposed to the president usually refuse to acknowledge. The anger about a change in U.S. policy won’t stem from its supposed negative impact on peace negotiations but from a desire to destroy the Jewish state. (…) continuing America’s historic refusal to recognize Israel’s rights in Jerusalem would have meant continuing to allow U.S. policy to be held hostage by extremists who have no interest in peace on any terms. While any mention of a shift on Jerusalem is being treated as demonstrating pro-Israel bias and a virtual Trump declaration of war on Middle East peace, the likely details of the statement contradict those assumptions. If Trump fails to refer to Jerusalem as a “united” city, he will actually be preserving the ambiguity in the U.S. position that peace-process advocates claim is necessary to keep the flagging hopes for a two-state solution alive. (…) In what must now be conceded as the unlikely prospect that the Palestinian Authority will ever agree to peace with Arab neighborhoods in the city serving as a capital for a second state, what possible reason could anyone have for opposing American recognition that western Jerusalem is Israeli? The answer is painfully obvious. (…) despite the constant criticism of Israel’s desire to keep the capital united — the only time in history that the holy places of the three monotheistic religions have been open to all has been during the last 50 years of Israeli sovereignty — or its building of new Jewish neighborhoods there or settlements elsewhere in the West Bank, the main reason why a Palestinian state has not been created is the Palestinians’ refusal to accept such a solution. Israel offered the Palestinians independence in a state that included a share of Jerusalem in 2000, 2001, and 2008 but was turned down each time (first by Yasir Arafat and then by his successor Mahmoud Abbas). That’s why Trump giving U.S. recognition to western Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is not even a theoretical bar to a two-state solution. Yet Palestinians consider even that minimal step, without moving the U.S. embassy to the place where Israel’s government actually sits, a flagrant insult to their national pride — and many of their supporters feel the same way. If their anger is expressed in riots, which might bring to mind the reaction to 2005 publication of satirical cartoons in a Danish newspaper, then Trump will be accused of fomenting violence. But while all of Trump’s predecessors considered this threat reason enough to avoid recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital — which entailed signing repeated waivers to a 1995 law that mandated moving the U.S. embassy there — what this does is essentially allow terrorists to dictate U.S. policy on a matter that wouldn’t preclude peace. What the foreign-policy establishment — including many State Department veterans responsible for decades of failure in the Middle East — also fails to see is that allowing that current situation to continue is itself a barrier to peace. As long as the Palestinians and their foreign enablers are allowed to hold on to the illusion that their century-old war on Zionism will eventually succeed, the sea change in their political culture that might enable peace will never happen. While there is little chance that Trump’s attempt to jolt them into reality will succeed, such a change is a prerequisite for successful negotiations, not a barrier to them. (…) no matter what happens after Trump’s Jerusalem statement, it is wrong to blame him for any violence or subsequent lack of progress toward peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The continued Palestinian refusal to accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state or Jewish ties to Jerusalem that is made manifest by their threats of a new intifada over a largely meaningless gesture by Trump remains the real problem. Trump may not be advancing a peace process that is already doomed, but he may give those willing to look clearly at the situation another demonstration of Palestinian intransigence.Jonathan S. Tobin

President Trump’s decision to formally recognize that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and to announce plans to move America’s embassy to the seat of Israel’s government is one of the best, most moral, and important decisions of his young administration. On this issue, he is demonstrating greater resolve than Republican and Democratic presidents before him, and he is defying some of the worst people in the world. (…)Yet the international community condemns America for recognizing reality, for treating Israel the way the world treats every other nation. Why? From the birth of the modern nation-state of Israel, an unholy mixture of anti-Semites and eliminationists have both sought to drive the Jewish people into the sea and — when military measures failed — isolate the Jewish nation diplomatically, militarily, and culturally. Working through the U.N. and enabled by Soviet-bloc (and later) European allies, these anti-Semites and eliminationists have waged unrelenting “lawfare” against Israel. (Lawfare is the abuse of international law and legal processes to accomplish military objectives that can’t be achieved on the battlefield.) The scam works like this: The U.N. and other international bodies establish rules that apply only to Israel, or they hold Israel to higher standards than any other nation on earth; then, when Israel (or its primary ally, America) object to those unjust rules and double standards, the Arab world threatens unrest, riots, or, at worst, renewed jihad. A cowardly European community goes along, perpetuating injustice in the name of “stability.” (…) Time and again the U.N. Human Rights Council and the U.N. General Assembly dedicate more resolutions to condemning Israel than the rest of the world’s nations combined. The world’s Islamic countries vote in unified lockstep against Israel, in spite of the fact that many of these countries are thousands of miles from the Middle East. They’re often motivated by vile anti-Semitic bias, and their populations are shot-through with bigotry. According to a 2013 Anti-Defamation League survey, a whopping 74 percent of North African and Middle Eastern residents registered anti-Semitic beliefs. Even 61 percent of far-away Malaysians have anti-Semitic attitudes. The U.N., moreover, adjusted its definition of refugees for the special and sole benefit of Palestinians. Contrary to conventional international law, the U.N. treats the descendants of Palestinian war refugees as refugees themselves. Thus, incredibly, the population of Palestinian “refugees” from the 1948 and 1967 conflicts is growing. The result is a perpetual, unique, and artificial crisis, one that is designed specifically to place pressure on one nation on planet Earth: Israel. When it comes to the scrutiny placed on the Israeli military, one hardly knows where to begin. The IDF takes greater care than any other actively engaged military in the world (including the U.S.) to avoid civilian casualties. Its routine conduct of military operations goes above and beyond the requirements of the law of armed conflict. By contrast, Israel’s terrorist opponents violate the law of armed conflict not just as a matter of course but as a matter of strategy. They target civilians on purpose. They use human shields. They hide weapons in civilian locations like mosques and hospitals. Yet when armed conflict breaks out, the anti-Semitic legions cheer Hamas and condemn the IDF. The bottom line is that to be Israeli in the world is to face unique challenges. In international competitions, athletes will sometimes forfeit rather than compete against Israelis. Universities will impose sanctions on Israeli academics that they’ll impose on no one else. You’ll find yourself barred from entering numerous countries. And when defenders of these double standards bleat about “Israeli occupation,” remember that they don’t impose the same penalties on nations with far worse records on human rights. That, friends, is textbook anti-Semitism. If “stability” means the perpetuation of double standards, the isolation of Israel, and continued kowtowing to threats of violence, then it’s time to call the Arabs’ bluff. If the most powerful nation in the history of the world doesn’t have the moral strength to even properly recognize Israel’s capital, it gives aid and comfort to those who impose unique burdens on the Jewish state. Will America’s Arab allies — nations that depend on our alliances to confront a growing Iranian threat — forsake their own national security to protest an embassy location? It’s time to find out. The Trump administration has made the right move. Now let’s see how the bigots respond. David French

President Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is a perfect response to former President Barack Obama’s benighted decision to change American policy by engineering the United Nations Security Council resolution declaring Judaism’s holiest places in Jerusalem to be occupied territory and a “flagrant violation under international law.” It was Obama who changed the status quo and made peace more difficult, by handing the Palestinians enormous leverage in future negotiations and disincentivizing them from making a compromised peace. (…) Before June 4, 1967, Jews were forbidden from praying at the Western Wall, Judaism’s holiest site. They were forbidden to attend classes at the Hebrew University at Mt. Scopus, which had been opened in 1925 and was supported by Albert Einstein. Jews could not seek medical care at the Hadassah Hospital on Mt. Scopus, which had treated Jews and Arabs alike since 1918. Jews could not live in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, where their forbearers had built homes and synagogues for thousands of years. These Judenrein prohibitions were enacted by Jordan, which had captured by military force these Jewish areas during Israel’s War of Independence, in 1948, and had illegally occupied the entire West Bank, which the United Nations had set aside for an Arab state. When the Jordanian government occupied these historic Jewish sites, they destroyed all the remnants of Judaism, including synagogues, schools, and cemeteries, whose headstones they used for urinals. Between 1948 and 1967, the United Nations did not offer a single resolution condemning this Jordanian occupation and cultural devastation. When Israel retook these areas in a defensive war that Jordan started by shelling civilian homes in West Jerusalem, and opened them up as places where Jews could pray, study, receive medical treatment and live, the United States took the official position that it would not recognize Israel’s legitimate claims to Jewish Jerusalem. (…) That is why the United States refused to allow an American citizen born in any part of Jerusalem to put the words “Jerusalem, Israel” on his or her passport as their place of birth. But even that ahistoric status quo was changed with Obama’s unjustified decision not to veto the Security Council Resolution from last December. The United Nations all of the sudden determined that subject to any further negotiations and agreements, the Jewish areas of Jerusalem recaptured from Jordan in 1967 are not part of Israel. Instead, they were territories being illegally occupied by Israel, and any building in these areas — including places for prayer at the Western Wall, access roads to Mt. Scopus, and synagogues in the historic Jewish Quarter — “constitutes a flagrant violation under international law.” If that indeed is the new status quo, then what incentives do the Palestinians have to enter negotiations? And if they were to do so, they could use these Jewish areas to extort unreasonable concessions from Israel, for which these now “illegally occupied” areas are sacred and non-negotiable. (…) Since virtually everyone in the international community acknowledges that any reasonable peace would recognize Israel’s legitimate claims to these and other areas in Jerusalem, there is no reason for allowing the U.N. resolution to make criminals out of every Jew or Israeli who sets foot on these historically Jewish areas. (Ironically, Obama prayed at what he regarded as the illegally occupied Western Wall.) After the United Nations, at the urging of Obama, made it a continuing international crime for there to be any Israeli presence in disputed areas of Jerusalem, including areas whose Jewish provenance is beyond dispute, Trump was right to untie his own hands and to undo the damage wrought by his predecessor. (…) No American decision should ever be influenced by the threat of violence. Terrorists should not have a veto over American policy. If the United States were to give in to threat of violence, it would only incentivize others to threaten violence in response to any peace plan. So let’s praise Trump for doing the right thing by undoing the wrong thing Obama did at the end of his presidency. Alan Dershowitz

President Trump’s visit to Israel next week is expected to lead to some announcement about his Jerusalem policy. The trip will coincide with celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the city’s reunification after the Six Day War. Only days after the visit, the president will have to decide between waiving an act of Congress or letting it take effect and moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv—as he promised last year to do if elected.

Jerusalem is the only world capital whose status is denied by the international community. To change that, in 1995 Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act, which mandates moving the U.S. Embassy to a “unified” Jerusalem. The law has been held in abeyance due to semiannual presidential waivers for “national security” reasons. President Obama’s final waiver will expire June 1.
There’s no good reason to maintain the charade that Jerusalem is not Israeli, and every reason for Mr. Trump to honor his campaign promise. The main arguments against moving the embassy—embraced by the foreign-policy establishment—is that it would lead to terrorism against American targets and undermine U.S. diplomacy. But the basis of those warnings has been undermined by the massive changes in the region since 1995.

While the Palestinian issue was once at the forefront of Arab politics, today Israel’s neighbors are preoccupied with a nuclear Iran and radical Islamic groups. For the Sunni Arab states, the Trump administration’s harder line against Iran is far more important than Jerusalem. To be sure, a decision to move the embassy could serve as a pretext for attacks by groups like al Qaeda. But they are already fully motivated against the U.S.
Another oft-heard admonition is that America would be going out on a limb if it “unilaterally” recognized Jerusalem when no other country did. An extraordinary recent development has rendered that warning moot. Last month Russia suddenly announced that it recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Note what happened next: No explosions of anger at the Arab world. No end to Russia’s diplomatic role in the Middle East. No terror attacks against Russian targets. Moscow’s dramatic Jerusalem reversal has largely been ignored by the foreign-policy establishment because it disproves their predictions of mayhem.

To be sure, Russia limited its recognition to “western Jerusalem.” Even so, it shifted the parameters of the discussion. Recognizing west Jerusalem as Israeli is now the position of a staunchly pro-Palestinian power. To maintain the distinctive U.S. role in Middle East diplomacy—and to do something historic—Mr. Trump must go further. Does the U.S. want to wind up with a less pro-Israel position than Vladimir Putin’s ?
The American response to real attacks against U.S. embassies has always been to send a clear message of strength. After the 1998 al Qaeda bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Washington did not shut down those missions. Instead it invested in heavily fortified new facilities—and in hunting down the perpetrators.

Moving the embassy to Jerusalem would also improve the prospect of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. It would end the perverse dynamic that has prevented such negotiations from succeeding: Every time the Palestinians say “no” to an offer, the international community demands a better deal on their behalf. No wonder no resolution has been reached. Only last week, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas insisted that new negotiations “start” with the generous offer made by Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008. Relocating the embassy would demonstrate to the Palestinian Authority that rejectionism has costs.

If Mr. Trump nonetheless signs the waiver, he could do two things to maintain his credibility in the peace process. First, formally recognize Jerusalem—the whole city—as the capital of Israel, and reflect that status in official documents. Second, make clear that unless the Palestinians get serious about peace within six months, his first waiver will be his last. He should set concrete benchmarks for the Palestinians to demonstrate their commitment to negotiations. These would include ending their campaign against Israel in international organizations and cutting off payments to terrorists and their relatives.

This is Mr. Trump’s moment to show strength. It cannot be American policy to choose to recognize a capital, or not, based on how terrorists will react—especially when they likely won’t.

Mr. Kontorovich is a department head at the Kohelet Policy Forum and a law professor at Northwestern University.

If recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital leads to violence, that’s a rejection of any idea of peace. The reaction from the foreign-policy establishment and America’s European and Arab allies is unanimous. All are opposed to President Donald Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Moreover, the very real possibility of violence from the Palestinians, and perhaps even bloody riots throughout the Muslim world, in reaction to a statement scheduled to be delivered today has once again brought down a hail of criticism assailing the president’s judgment. But while this may complicate America’s position in the Middle East and further confuse an already muddled peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, the brickbats aimed at Trump are ignoring the most significant aspect of the controversy.

If Trump acknowledges something that has been a reality for nearly 70 years — Jerusalem has been Israel’s capital since the conclusion of its War of Independence in 1949 — but, as is likely, doesn’t immediately move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv or explicitly recognize Israel’s right to all of Jerusalem, then any resulting Arab or Muslim violence will make explicit something that most of those opposed to the president usually refuse to acknowledge. The anger about a change in U.S. policy won’t stem from its supposed negative impact on peace negotiations but from a desire to destroy the Jewish state.

The timing of Trump’s statement is curious given the fact that his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, has been trying to revive peace negotiations with Saudi help. But continuing America’s historic refusal to recognize Israel’s rights in Jerusalem would have meant continuing to allow U.S. policy to be held hostage by extremists who have no interest in peace on any terms.

While any mention of a shift on Jerusalem is being treated as demonstrating pro-Israel bias and a virtual Trump declaration of war on Middle East peace, the likely details of the statement contradict those assumptions. If Trump fails to refer to Jerusalem as a “united” city, he will actually be preserving the ambiguity in the U.S. position that peace-process advocates claim is necessary to keep the flagging hopes for a two-state solution alive.

The 1947 United Nations partition resolution, which called for the creation of Jewish and Arab states in what was then British Mandate for Palestine, set aside Jerusalem as an international zone. This impractical plan was a dead letter from the outset, since neither the Palestinian Arabs nor the rest of the Arab and Muslim world were prepared to accept the creation of a Jewish state even if it did not include even part of the holy city and was matched by a new Arab nation. But the lack of international sanction for Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem that has served as the pretext for non-recognition of the city’s status as the capital is no bar to a two-state solution. In what must now be conceded as the unlikely prospect that the Palestinian Authority will ever agree to peace with Arab neighborhoods in the city serving as a capital for a second state, what possible reason could anyone have for opposing American recognition that western Jerusalem is Israeli?

The answer is painfully obvious.

The ceasefire that ended the first Arab–Israeli war in 1949 left Jerusalem split, with the western portion controlled by Israel and the rest, including the Old City and the most sacred Jewish shrines, occupied (illegally, as far as every nation in the world other than Britain and Pakistan were concerned) by Jordan. In 1967, the Six-Day War ended with the barriers dividing the city torn down as Israeli forces unified Jerusalem. The Jewish state soon annexed the portions that Jordan had occupied, but the international community still did not recognize Israel’s hold on the city and the continued presence of its government.

The conceit of a two-state solution is that both Israel and the putative Palestine would have their capital in Jerusalem. How the city would be repartitioned without reverting to its pre-1967 status, in which two armed enemies were separated only by ugly walls and a no man’s land, has never been made clear. Moreover, despite the constant criticism of Israel’s desire to keep the capital united — the only time in history that the holy places of the three monotheistic religions have been open to all has been during the last 50 years of Israeli sovereignty — or its building of new Jewish neighborhoods there or settlements elsewhere in the West Bank, the main reason why a Palestinian state has not been created is the Palestinians’ refusal to accept such a solution. Israel offered the Palestinians independence in a state that included a share of Jerusalem in 2000, 2001, and 2008 but was turned down each time (first by Yasir Arafat and then by his successor Mahmoud Abbas). That’s why Trump giving U.S. recognition to western Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is not even a theoretical bar to a two-state solution. Yet Palestinians consider even that minimal step, without moving the U.S. embassy to the place where Israel’s government actually sits, a flagrant insult to their national pride — and many of their supporters feel the same way. If their anger is expressed in riots, which might bring to mind the reaction to 2005 publication of satirical cartoons in a Danish newspaper, then Trump will be accused of fomenting violence.

But while all of Trump’s predecessors considered this threat reason enough to avoid recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital — which entailed signing repeated waivers to a 1995 law that mandated moving the U.S. embassy there — what this does is essentially allow terrorists to dictate U.S. policy on a matter that wouldn’t preclude peace. What the foreign-policy establishment — including many State Department veterans responsible for decades of failure in the Middle East — also fails to see is that allowing that current situation to continue is itself a barrier to peace. As long as the Palestinians and their foreign enablers are allowed to hold on to the illusion that their century-old war on Zionism will eventually succeed, the sea change in their political culture that might enable peace will never happen.

While there is little chance that Trump’s attempt to jolt them into reality will succeed, such a change is a prerequisite for successful negotiations, not a barrier to them. That said, it should also be conceded that Trump’s entirely defensible stand on Jerusalem is at odds with the strategy his son-in-law is pursuing toward Middle East peace. Kushner’s “outside-in” approach, which rests on the assumption that the Saudis can bribe or bully an unwilling Palestinian Authority and its Hamas rivals into peace, is just as unlikely to succeed as any other plan. It’s hard to imagine the Saudis’ willingly allowing themselves to be construed as backing Israeli sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem even if Riyadh views the Jewish state as an ally against Iran and has little real sympathy for the addition of another unstable Arab nation to the region. That illustrates the uncoordinated and often confused attitude of a Trump administration that similarly can’t decide between its justified hostility toward Iran and its desire for détente with Russia. But no matter what happens after Trump’s Jerusalem statement, it is wrong to blame him for any violence or subsequent lack of progress toward peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The continued Palestinian refusal to accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state or Jewish ties to Jerusalem that is made manifest by their threats of a new intifada over a largely meaningless gesture by Trump remains the real problem. Trump may not be advancing a peace process that is already doomed, but he may give those willing to look clearly at the situation another demonstration of Palestinian intransigence.

— Jonathan S. Tobin is the editor in chief of JNS.org and a contributor to National Review Online.

By moving America’s embassy to Jerusalem, the U.S. confronts the bigoted double standards of the international community.

David French

National Review

December 6, 2017

President Trump’s decision to formally recognize that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and to announce plans to move America’s embassy to the seat of Israel’s government is one of the best, most moral, and important decisions of his young administration. On this issue, he is demonstrating greater resolve than Republican and Democratic presidents before him, and he is defying some of the worst people in the world.

Think I’m overstating this? Think I’m too enthusiastic about an isolated diplomatic maneuver — especially when that maneuver, to quote the New York Times, “isolates the U.S.” and “has drawn a storm of criticism from Arab and European leaders”? Let’s consider some law, history, and context.

First, sovereign nations are entitled to name their capital, and it is the near-universal practice of other nations to locate their embassies in that same capital. I say “near-universal” because the nations of the world have steadfastly refused to recognize Israel’s capital. They’ve steadfastly placed their embassies outside of Jerusalem. They do so in spite of the Jewish people’s ancient connection to the City of David and in spite of the fact that no conceivable peace settlement would turn over the seat of Israel’s government to Palestinian control — even if parts of East Jerusalem are reserved for a Palestinian capital. Israel’s government sits on Israeli land, and it will remain Israeli land.

Yet the international community condemns America for recognizing reality, for treating Israel the way the world treats every other nation. Why?

Powered by From the birth of the modern nation-state of Israel, an unholy mixture of anti-Semites and eliminationists have both sought to drive the Jewish people into the sea and — when military measures failed — isolate the Jewish nation diplomatically, militarily, and culturally. Working through the U.N. and enabled by Soviet-bloc (and later) European allies, these anti-Semites and eliminationists have waged unrelenting “lawfare” against Israel. (Lawfare is the abuse of international law and legal processes to accomplish military objectives that can’t be achieved on the battlefield.)

The scam works like this: The U.N. and other international bodies establish rules that apply only to Israel, or they hold Israel to higher standards than any other nation on earth; then, when Israel (or its primary ally, America) object to those unjust rules and double standards, the Arab world threatens unrest, riots, or, at worst, renewed jihad. A cowardly European community goes along, perpetuating injustice in the name of “stability.”

The examples are legion. Time and again the U.N. Human Rights Council and the U.N. General Assembly dedicate more resolutions to condemning Israel than the rest of the world’s nations combined. The world’s Islamic countries vote in unified lockstep against Israel, in spite of the fact that many of these countries are thousands of miles from the Middle East. They’re often motivated by vile anti-Semitic bias, and their populations are shot-through with bigotry. According to a 2013 Anti-Defamation League survey, a whopping 74 percent of North African and Middle Eastern residents registered anti-Semitic beliefs. Even 61 percent of far-away Malaysians have anti-Semitic attitudes.

The U.N., moreover, adjusted its definition of refugees for the special and sole benefit of Palestinians. Contrary to conventional international law, the U.N. treats the descendants of Palestinian war refugees as refugees themselves. Thus, incredibly, the population of Palestinian “refugees” from the 1948 and 1967 conflicts is growing. The result is a perpetual, unique, and artificial crisis, one that is designed specifically to place pressure on one nation on planet Earth: Israel.

When it comes to the scrutiny placed on the Israeli military, one hardly knows where to begin. The IDF takes greater care than any other actively engaged military in the world (including the U.S.) to avoid civilian casualties. Its routine conduct of military operations goes above and beyond the requirements of the law of armed conflict. By contrast, Israel’s terrorist opponents violate the law of armed conflict not just as a matter of course but as a matter of strategy. They target civilians on purpose. They use human shields. They hide weapons in civilian locations like mosques and hospitals. Yet when armed conflict breaks out, the anti-Semitic legions cheer Hamas and condemn the IDF.

The bottom line is that to be Israeli in the world is to face unique challenges. In international competitions, athletes will sometimes forfeit rather than compete against Israelis. Universities will impose sanctions on Israeli academics that they’ll impose on no one else. You’ll find yourself barred from entering numerous countries. And when defenders of these double standards bleat about “Israeli occupation,” remember that they don’t impose the same penalties on nations with far worse records on human rights. That, friends, is textbook anti-Semitism.

If ‘stability’ means the perpetuation of double standards, the isolation of Israel, and continued kowtowing to threats of violence, then it’s time to call the Arabs’ bluff. If “stability” means the perpetuation of double standards, the isolation of Israel, and continued kowtowing to threats of violence, then it’s time to call the Arabs’ bluff. If the most powerful nation in the history of the world doesn’t have the moral strength to even properly recognize Israel’s capital, it gives aid and comfort to those who impose unique burdens on the Jewish state. Will America’s Arab allies — nations that depend on our alliances to confront a growing Iranian threat — forsake their own national security to protest an embassy location? It’s time to find out.

The Trump administration has made the right move. Now let’s see how the bigots respond.

Today, President Trump officially recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel finally moving forward Jerusalem embassy act of 1995. This is a truly historic day. President Trump’s speech today is one for the ages. He is now a historical figure of monumental proportion.

Mr. Trump made the formal announcement during a speech in the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House, with Vice President Mike Pence standing behind him.

_______

PRESIDENT TRUMP:

Thank you. When I came into office, I promised to look at the world’s challenges with open eyes and very fresh thinking.

We cannot solve our problems by making the same failed assumptions and repeating the same failed strategies of the past. All challenges demand new approaches.

My announcement today marks the beginning of a new approach to conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

In 1995, Congress adopted the Jerusalem Embassy Act urging the federal government to relocate the American Embassy to Jerusalem and to recognize that that city, and so importantly, is Israel’s capital. This act passed congress by an overwhelming bipartisan majority. And was reaffirmed by unanimous vote of the Senate only six months ago.

Yet, for over 20 years, every previous American president has exercised the law’s waiver, refusing to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem or to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital city. Presidents issued these waivers under the belief that delaying the recognition of Jerusalem would advance the cause of peace. Some say they lacked courage but they made their best judgments based on facts as they understood them at the time. Nevertheless, the record is in.

After more than two decades of waivers, we are no closer to a lasting peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.

It would be folly to assume that repeating the exact same formula would now produce a different or better result.

Therefore, I have determined that it is time to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

While previous presidents have made this a major campaign promise, they failed to deliver.

Today, I am delivering. I’ve judged this course of action to be in the best interests of the United States of America and the pursuit of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. This is a long overdue step to advance the peace process. And to work towards a lasting agreement.

Israel is a sovereign nation with the right, like every other sovereign nation, to determine its own capital. Acknowledging this is a fact is a necessary condition for achieving peace. It was 70 years ago that the United States under President Truman recognized the state of Israel.

Ever since then, Israel has made its capital in the city of Jerusalem, the capital the Jewish people established in ancient times.

Today, Jerusalem is the seat of the modern Israeli government. It is the home of the Israeli Parliament, the Knesset, as well as the Israeli Supreme Court. It is the location of the official residence of the prime minister and the president. It is the headquarters of many government ministries.

For decades, visiting American presidents, secretaries of State and military leaders have met their Israeli counterparts in Jerusalem, as I did on my trip to Israel earlier this year.

Jerusalem is not just the heart of three great religions, but it is now also the heart of one of the most successful democracies in the world. Over the past seven decades, the Israeli people have by the a country where Jews, Muslims and Christians and people of all faiths are free to live and worship according to their conscience and according to their beliefs.

Jerusalem is today and must remain a place where Jews pray at the Western Wall, where Christians walk the stations of the cross, and where Muslims worship at Al Aqsa Mosque. However, through all of these years, presidents representing the United States have declined to officially recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. In fact, we have declined to acknowledge any Israeli capital at all.

But today we finally acknowledge the obvious. That Jerusalem is Israel’s capital. This is nothing more or less than a recognition of reality. It is also the right thing to do. It’s something that has to be done.

That is why consistent with the Jerusalem embassy act, I am also directing the State Department to begin preparation to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This will immediately begin the process of hiring architects, engineers and planners so that a new embassy, when completed, will be a magnificent tribute to peace.

In making these announcements, I also want to make one point very clear. This decision is not intended in any way to reflect a departure from our strong commitment to facilitate a lasting peace agreement.

We want an agreement that is a great deal for the Israelis and a great deal for the Palestinians. We are not taking a position of any final status issues including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem or the resolution of contested borders. Those questions are up to the parties involved.

The United States remains deeply committed to helping facilitate a peace agreement that is acceptable to both sides. I intend to do everything in my power to help forge such an agreement.

Without question, Jerusalem is one of the most sensitive issues in those talks. The United States would support a two-state solution if agreed to by both sides. In the meantime, I call on all parties to maintain the status quo at Jerusalem’s holy sites including the Temple Mount, also known as Haram al-Sharif. Above all, our greatest hope is for peace. The universal yearning in every human soul.

With today’s action, I reaffirm my administration’s longstanding commitment to a future of peace and security for the region. There will, of course, be disagreement and dissent regarding this announcement. But we are confident that ultimately, as we work through these disagreements, we will arrive at a peace and a place far greater in understanding and cooperation. This sacred city should call forth the best in humanity.

Lifting our sights to what is possible, not pulling us back and down to the old fights that have become so totally predictable.

Peace is never beyond the grasp of those willing to reach it.

So today we call for calm, for moderation, and for the voices of tolerance to prevail over the purveyors of hate. Our children should inherit our love, not our conflicts. I repeat the message I delivered at the historic and extraordinary summit in Saudi Arabia earlier this year: The Middle East is a region rich with culture, spirit, and history. Its people are brilliant, proud and diverse. Vibrant and strong.

But the incredible future awaiting this region is held at bay by bloodshed, ignorance and terror.

Vice President Pence will travel to the region in the coming days to reaffirm our commitment to work with partners throughout the Middle East to defeat radicalism that threatens the hopes and dreams of future generations.

It is time for the many who desire peace to expel the extremists from their midsts. It is time for all civilized nations and people to respond to disagreement with reasoned debate, not violence. And it is time for young and moderate voices all across the Middle East to claim for themselves a bright and beautiful future.

So today, let us rededicate ourselves to a path of mutual understanding and respect. Let us rethink old assumptions and open our hearts and minds to possible and possibilities.

And finally, I ask the leaders of the region political and religious, Israeli and Palestinian, Jewish and Christian and Muslim to join us in the noble quest for lasting peace.

President Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is a perfect response to former President Barack Obama’s benighted decision to change American policy by engineering the United Nations Security Council resolution declaring Judaism’s holiest places in Jerusalem to be occupied territory and a “flagrant violation under international law.” It was Obama who changed the status quo and made peace more difficult, by handing the Palestinians enormous leverage in future negotiations and disincentivizing them from making a compromised peace.

It had long been American foreign policy to veto any one-sided Security Council resolutions that declared Judaism’s holiest places to be illegally occupied. Obama’s decision to change that policy was not based on American interests or in the interests of peace. It was done out of personal revenge against Prime Minister Netanyahu and an act of pique by the outgoing president. It was also designed improperly to tie the hands of President-elect Trump. President Trump is doing the right thing by telling the United Nations that the United States now rejects the one-sided Security Council resolution.

So if there is any change to the status quo, let the blame lie where it should be: at the hands of Obama for his cowardly decision to wait until he was a lame-duck president to get even with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Trump deserves praise for restoring balance in negotiations with Israel and the Palestinians. It was Obama who made peace more difficult. It was Trump who made it more feasible again.

The outrageously one-sided Security Council resolution declared that “any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem,” have “no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law.” This means, among other things, that Israel’s decision to build a plaza for prayer at the Western Wall — Judaism’s holiest site — constitutes a “flagrant violation of international law.” This resolution was, therefore, not limited to settlements in the West Bank, as the Obama administration later claimed in a bait-and-switch. The resolution applied equally to the very heart of Israel.

Before June 4, 1967, Jews were forbidden from praying at the Western Wall, Judaism’s holiest site. They were forbidden to attend classes at the Hebrew University at Mt. Scopus, which had been opened in 1925 and was supported by Albert Einstein. Jews could not seek medical care at the Hadassah Hospital on Mt. Scopus, which had treated Jews and Arabs alike since 1918. Jews could not live in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, where their forbearers had built homes and synagogues for thousands of years.

These Judenrein prohibitions were enacted by Jordan, which had captured by military force these Jewish areas during Israel’s War of Independence, in 1948, and had illegally occupied the entire West Bank, which the United Nations had set aside for an Arab state. When the Jordanian government occupied these historic Jewish sites, they destroyed all the remnants of Judaism, including synagogues, schools, and cemeteries, whose headstones they used for urinals. Between 1948 and 1967, the United Nations did not offer a single resolution condemning this Jordanian occupation and cultural devastation.

When Israel retook these areas in a defensive war that Jordan started by shelling civilian homes in West Jerusalem, and opened them up as places where Jews could pray, study, receive medical treatment and live, the United States took the official position that it would not recognize Israel’s legitimate claims to Jewish Jerusalem.

It stated that the status of Jerusalem, including these newly liberated areas, would be left open to final negotiations and that the status quo would remain in place. That is the official rationale for why the United States refused to recognize any part of Jerusalem, including West Jerusalem, as part of Israel. That is why the United States refused to allow an American citizen born in any part of Jerusalem to put the words “Jerusalem, Israel” on his or her passport as their place of birth.

But even that ahistoric status quo was changed with Obama’s unjustified decision not to veto the Security Council Resolution from last December. The United Nations all of the sudden determined that subject to any further negotiations and agreements, the Jewish areas of Jerusalem recaptured from Jordan in 1967 are not part of Israel. Instead, they were territories being illegally occupied by Israel, and any building in these areas — including places for prayer at the Western Wall, access roads to Mt. Scopus, and synagogues in the historic Jewish Quarter — “constitutes a flagrant violation under international law.” If that indeed is the new status quo, then what incentives do the Palestinians have to enter negotiations? And if they were to do so, they could use these Jewish areas to extort unreasonable concessions from Israel, for which these now “illegally occupied” areas are sacred and non-negotiable.

Obama’s refusal to veto this one-sided resolution was a deliberate ploy to tie the hands of his successors, the consequence of which was to make it far more difficult for his successors to encourage the Palestinians to accept Israel’s offer to negotiate with no preconditions. No future president can undo this pernicious agreement since a veto not cast can never be retroactively cast. And a resolution once enacted cannot be rescinded unless there is a majority vote against it, with no veto by any of its permanent members, which include Russia and China, who would be sure to veto any attempt to undo this resolution.

Trump’s decision to officially recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital helps to restore the appropriate balance. It demonstrates that the United States does not accept the Judenrein effects of this bigoted resolution on historic Jewish areas of Jerusalem, which were forbidden to Jews. The prior refusal of the United States to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital was based explicitly on the notion that nothing should be done to change the status quo of that city, holy to three religions. But the Security Council resolution did exactly that. It changed the status quo by declaring Israel’s de facto presence on these Jewish holy sites to be a “flagrant violation under international law” that “the U.N. will not recognize.”

Since virtually everyone in the international community acknowledges that any reasonable peace would recognize Israel’s legitimate claims to these and other areas in Jerusalem, there is no reason for allowing the U.N. resolution to make criminals out of every Jew or Israeli who sets foot on these historically Jewish areas. (Ironically, Obama prayed at what he regarded as the illegally occupied Western Wall.)

After the United Nations, at the urging of Obama, made it a continuing international crime for there to be any Israeli presence in disputed areas of Jerusalem, including areas whose Jewish provenance is beyond dispute, Trump was right to untie his own hands and to undo the damage wrought by his predecessor. Some have argued that the United States should not recognize Jerusalem because it will stimulate violence by Arab terrorists.

No American decision should ever be influenced by the threat of violence. Terrorists should not have a veto over American policy. If the United States were to give in to threat of violence, it would only incentivize others to threaten violence in response to any peace plan. So let’s praise Trump for doing the right thing by undoing the wrong thing Obama did at the end of his presidency. Alan Dershowitz

Navigation des articles

EXACTLY THE RIGHT MESSAGE TO THE PALESTINIANS (The riot veto must not be allowed to determine policy)

This completes the UN creation of Israel on Nov. 29, 1947. Coincidentally, it came 70 years and 7 days after the UN vote. Also of note, it came 3 days shy of the centenary of British conquest of Jerusalem from the Ottomans. It effectively recognizes pre-1967 west Jerusalem, not the whole of Jerusalem, as Israel’s capital. It also leaves the ugly old consular and passport practices in place. As a specialist on the Middle East, I hate to admit it, but this step results from fresh faces breaking with a stale past. The move sends exactly the right message to the Palestinians: your continued attempt to eliminate the Jewish state of Israel will cost you. The Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim obsession with Jerusalem stems not from a religious interest in the city but a desire to control it. Put differently, where Zionists tread, Palestinians follow.

Trump’s December 2017 moving the embassy neatly checks and refutes Obama’s December 2016 abstaining from U.N. Security Council resolution 2334. Denunciations of the move came in fast and hard from the pope, the UN Secretary-General, European leaders, Ankara and Tehran, Islamists, the Left, and Palestinians. Strikingly, however, Arab states were largely mum, for they have much higher priorities to contend with. Good for Trump ignoring threats of the Arab street rising up; the riot veto must not be allowed to determine policy.

HOWLING WITH THE WOLVES (Shame on France and Britain for joining the anti-America and anti-Israel mob at the UN !)

At the UN we’re always asked to do more & give more. So, when we make a decision, at the will of the American ppl, abt where to locate OUR embassy, we don’t expect those we’ve helped to target us. On Thurs there’ll be a vote criticizing our choice. The US will be taking names.

Despite his populist rhetoric, Erdoğan’s AKP government implicitly recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital when the Turkish government signed an indemnity agreement with its Israeli counterpart following the ‘Mavi Marmara-Gaza flotilla raid’. (…) Despite his anti-Israel rhetoric, President Erdoğan stepped back and decided to sign an agreement with Israel in June 2016. The agreement, according to which Israel accepted paying out 20-million dollars to the Turkish government for the compensation of activists injured during the Israeli attack in 2010, was undersigned by both sides as « between Ankara and Jerusalem » instead of « between Ankara and Tel Aviv », partly recognizing Jerusalem as the Israeli capital city…

EVEN MAHER HATES TO AGREE WITH TRUMP (You know something’s terribly wrong when even Bill Maher has to agree with Trump !)

« I hate to agree with Donald Trump, but it doesn’t happen often, but I do. I don’t know why Israel — it has been their capital since 1949. It is where their government is. They’ve won all the wars thrown against them. I don’t understand why they don’t get to have their capital where they want.”

A CESSPOOL OF POLITICAL BIAS (With more resolutions condemning Israel than against the rest of the world combined)

« For too long, the Human Rights Council has been a protector of human rights abusers and a cesspool of political bias. Regrettably, it is now clear that our call for reform was not heeded. Human rights abusers continue to serve on and be elected to the council. The world’s most inhumane regimes continue to escape scrutiny, and the council continues politicizing and scapegoating of countries with positive human rights records in an attempt to distract from the abusers in their ranks. Therefore, as we said we would do a year ago if we did not see any progress, the United States is officially withdrawing from the UN Human Rights Council. In doing so, I want to make it crystal clear that this step is not a retreat from human rights commitments; on the contrary, we take this step because our commitment does not allow us to remain a part of a hypocritical and self-serving organization that makes a mockery of human rights. (…) Almost every country we met with agrees with us in principle and behind closed doors that the Human Rights Council needs major, dramatic, systemic changes, yet no other country has had the courage to join our fight.(…) When a so-called Human Rights Council cannot bring itself to address the massive abuses in Venezuela and Iran, and it welcomes the Democratic Republic of Congo as a new member, the council ceases to be worthy of its name. Such a council, in fact, damages the cause of human rights. And then, of course, there is the matter of the chronic bias against Israel. Last year, the United States made it clear that we would not accept the continued existence of agenda item seven, which singles out Israel in a way that no other country is singled out. Earlier this year, as it has in previous years, the Human Rights Council passed five resolutions against Israel – more than the number passed against North Korea, Iran, and Syria combined. This disproportionate focus and unending hostility towards Israel is clear proof that the council is motivated by political bias, not by human rights. (…) America has a proud legacy as a champion of human rights, a proud legacy as the world’s largest provider of humanitarian aid, and a proud legacy of liberating oppressed people and defeating tyranny throughout the world. While we do not seek to impose the American system on anyone else, we do support the rights of all people to have freedoms bestowed on them by their creator. That is why we are withdrawing from the UN Human Rights Council, an organization that is not worthy of its name. »

Nikki Haley

« We have no doubt that there was once a noble vision for this council. But today, we need to be honest – the Human Rights Council is a poor defender of human rights. Worse than that, the Human Rights Council has become an exercise in shameless hypocrisy – with many of the world’s worst human rights abuses going ignored, and some of the world’s most serious offenders sitting on the council itself. The only thing worse than a council that does almost nothing to protect human rights is a council that covers for human rights abuses and is therefore an obstacle to progress and an impediment to change. The Human Rights Council enables abuses by absolving wrongdoers through silence and falsely condemning those who have committed no offense. A mere look around the world today demonstrates that the council has failed in its stated objectives. Its membership includes authoritarian governments with unambiguous and abhorrent human rights records, such as China, Cuba, and Venezuela. (…) And the council’s continued and well-documented bias against Israel is unconscionable. Since its creation, the council has adopted more resolutions condemning Israel than against the rest of the world combined. »

IT’S THE NEW YORK THING, STUPID ! (Everything is the biggest and the best, but when it comes to the real barometer of presidential truthfulness — keeping his promises — Trump is a paragon of honesty)

« Don’t get me wrong, Trump lies all the time. He said that he “enacted the biggest tax cuts and reforms in American history” (actually they are the eighth largest) and that “our economy is the strongest it’s ever been in the history of our country” (which may one day be true, but not yet). In part, it’s a New York thing — everything is the biggest and the best. But when it comes to the real barometer of presidential truthfulness — keeping his promises — Trump is a paragon of honesty. For better or worse, since taking office Trump has done exactly what he promised he would. Trump kept his promise to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, something his three immediate predecessors also promised yet failed to do. He promised to “crush and destroy ISIS,” and two years later he is on the verge of eliminating the Islamic State’s physical caliphate. He promised to impose a travel ban on countries that he saw as posing a terrorist threat, and after several false starts the final version of his ban was upheld by the Supreme Court. He promised to punish Syria if it used chemical weapons on its people, and, unlike his immediate predecessor, he followed through — not once but twice. Trump pledged to nominate Supreme Court justices “in the mold of Justice [Antonin] Scalia,” and now Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh sit on the high court. Trump also pledged to fill the federal appellate courts with young, conservative judges, and so far the Senate has confirmed 29 — more than any recent president at this point in his administration. Trump vowed to pass historic tax reforms and signed the first major overhaul of the tax code in three decades. He vowed an unprecedented regulatory rollback, with a strict policy to eliminate two existing regulations for every new regulation. In his first year, he achieved $8.1 billion in lifetime regulatory savings and is on track to achieve an additional $9.8 billion this year. During the campaign, he told African American voters, “What do you have to lose? . . . I will straighten it out. I’ll bring jobs back. We’ll bring spirit back.” On his watch, African American unemployment reached the lowest level ever recorded, and his tax reform included a little-noticed provision creating “Opportunity Zones” to try to revitalize struggling towns and inner-city communities. Trump promised to cancel President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan, withdraw from the Paris climate accord, approve the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, and open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration. He fulfilled all of those pledges. On trade, he kept his promise to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and impose tariffs on steel and aluminum. He also committed to renegotiating NAFTA and the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement — and recently signed new deals with Mexico, Canada and South Korea. He committed to imposing tariffs on China to force it to open its markets and stop its theft of intellectual property — and is following through on that pledge. Whatever one thinks of Trump’s trade policies, he is doing exactly what he said. The president pledged historic increases in defense spending, and delivered. He pledged to bring back manufacturing jobs, and manufacturing jobs are growing at the fastest pace in more than two decades. He pledged to sign “Right to Try” legislation to give dying Americans access to experimental treatments, and did. He pledged to take on the opioid epidemic and will soon sign a sweeping bipartisan opioids package into law. Where Trump has failed to keep promises, such as building the wall or repealing Obamacare, it has not been for a lack of trying. Only in a few rare instances has he backtracked on a campaign pledge — such as when he admitted that he was wrong to promise a complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan and reversed course. I’m glad he did. But whether one agrees or disagrees is not the point. When Trump says he will do something, you can take it to the bank. Yes, he takes liberties with the truth. But unlike his predecessor, he did not pass his signature legislative achievement on the basis of a lie (“If you like your health care plan, you can keep it ”) — which is clearly worse than falsely bragging that your tax cut is the biggest ever. The fact is, in his first two years, Trump has compiled a remarkable record of presidential promise-keeping. He’d probably say it’s the best in history — which may or may not end up being true. It’s too soon to tell. »